Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The Washington Post has published a story about a FEMALE soldier who lost custody. Why didn't they feel compelled to write about the HUNDREDS of FATHERS to whom this also happens. Do journalists know the meaning of the word balance? Why didn't the Post write about as to why this happens to so many fathers in the first place? A gender bias media are rather tiresome.
Uncle Sam wants you and your kids.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

After reading the article titled “Slow road to justice puts trials at risk (Press Dec 26)’, I find it rather disturbing that our justice system is suffering from a huge backlog of cases, which is causing long delays in the delivery of natural justice.

Some will argue the systematic failure is caused through the over inflated egos of defence lawyers or the adversarial approach to litigation, while others may blame the Ministry of Justice unreasonable trial roster schedules and various appeal law rights.

I would have thought that the obscene salaries paid to senior Ministry of Justice officials, Law Commissioners and judges would have created an effective system that provides a satisfactory service that maintains acceptable standards for the public.

Is kiwi justice having 70% of people that are unfortunate enough to be remanded in custody this Christmas either acquitted or face no further jail time after sentence come 2009?

No matter what, the judge’s gavel or the turkey gobble, you will get stuffed either way.

A quarter of Christchurch jury trials are at risk for taking more than a year to reach court.

Figures obtained from the Ministry of Justice show 41 of 150 Christchurch District Court cases awaiting trial have run 12 months or more from the date of charge.

Wellington lawyer and former MP Stephen Franks said the figures were a scandal.

"The system we've got is a disgrace," he said.

If cases take too long they can be abandoned (given a stay) for violating the right to a prompt trial.

In one Christchurch case of an assault with intent to injure on two people in Colombo Street in November 2005, the trial did not begin until July 2007.

At the trial, an issue arose with a juror and a retrial was ordered. Owing to "pressure of business upon the court", the new trial could not be held before February 11 this year two years and three months after the alleged assault.

In ordering a stay, Judge Philip Moran said: "As at August 22, 2007, there were 141 trials outstanding in the Christchurch District Court; 36 of them were `at risk' inasmuch as more than 12 months had elapsed since the date of charge."

Of the 150 cases currently awaiting trial, 34 have at least one person remanded in custody.

Queen's Counsel Nigel Hampton said such numbers were unacceptable in light of statistics that showed about 70 per cent of people remanded in custody were either acquitted or did not receive a jail sentence.

"It's far too long," he said. "We should be looking to a system that has the ability to go from arrest to trial in, ideally, six months."

Christchurch figures are on a par with Wellington's, but 58% of Auckland cases are more than a year old.

Christchurch has addressed the problem of cases involving child-sex complainants.

In August last year, 40 of the outstanding cases were for sexual offences, with 17 of those involving child complainants. Currently, 23 of the cases awaiting trial are for sexual offences, but none is for a child complainant, the ministry says.

Franks said the system was "groaning under the weight of detail" presented in cases.

"The trouble is the legal profession the insane pride with the care they prepare things," he said.

Franks said the system was "bedevilled by appeals against sentence", which could be fixed by penalising "fanciful" appeals.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

The Queen has urged people to learn from unsung heroes when times are tough.

Delivering her Christmas message yesterday, the 82-year-old sovereign said that Christmas this year was a sombre occasion for many.

"Some of those things which could once have been taken for granted suddenly seem less certain and, naturally, give rise to feelings of insecurity," she said.

"People are touched by events which have their roots far across the world. Whether it is the global economy or violence in a distant land, the effects can be felt at home."

The Queen paid tribute to the armed forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and she acknowledged that the worry for their loved ones would not stop until they returned.

She also praised those who acted in the service of others in civilian life and encouraged people to follow their example.

The Queen spoke of her pride in watching eldest son Charles support causes for young people and others through his charities and in seeing Charles' sons, William and Harry, follow in his footsteps.

"We can surely be grateful that, two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, so many of us are able to draw inspiration from his life and message, and to find in him a source of strength and courage," she said.

Monday, December 22, 2008

The National Organization for Women , radical feminists, and Women’s Studies departments, often deny that women make false accusations about rape by asking the naïve, simplistic, and self-serving question: “Why would a woman lie?”

It turns out that there are plenty of reasons women lie about rape, either deliberately or out of desperation.

A U.S. Air Force study, “The False Rape Allegation in the Military Community (1983) investigated 556 cases of alleged rape, and found a 60% rate of false accusations. As part of the study, women who were found to have made false accusations were asked “WHY?”

Motivations given by the women who acknowledged they had made false accusations:

REASON PERCENT

revenge 20

To compensate for feelings of guilt or shame 20

Thought she might be pregnant 13

To conceal an affair 12

To test husbands’ love 9

Mental/emotional disorder 9

To avoid personal responsibility 4

Failure to pay, or extortion 4

Thought she might have caught VD 3

Other 6

TOTAL 100%

The study found that most false accusations are “instrumental” – they served a purpose. If the purpose isn’t avoiding guilt, or getting revenge, it might serve a more focused purpose, for example, telling her parents; “I didn’t just go out and get pregnant, I was raped.” Or, telling her husband, “I didn’t have an affair, it wasn’t my fault, I was raped.”

An unrelated Washington Post article, “Unfounded Rape Reports Baffle Investigators” (6/27/1992) also found a wide range of motivations to falsely accuse men of rape. Anger toward boyfriends was common. One woman had her boyfriend spend 13 months in jail before she acknowledged that she had lied. One woman accused her newspaper delivery man of raping her at gunpoint because she needed an excuse to be late to work.

Neither woman was prosecuted or even reprimanded for lying to the police and attempting to have a man frivolously imprisoned. In a recent US case, police say a young woman who admitted to falsifying two rape reports only wanted a day off from work.

All rape accusations need to be considered seriously, as, no doubt, rape does occur. But a balance needs to be maintained between the claims of the accuser against the all-too-often legitimate denial of the accused.

Women who are found to have made a false sexual assault complaint should receive the same jail sentence as the male victim would have received if he had been convicted. That will put the brakes on fake rape charges.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

In New Zealand unscrupulous court appointed children's lawyers like Chris Robertson and Adrienne Edwards actively encourage PAS, while sinister Court appointed psychologists like the criminal John Watson and Michael Davidson persecute the paternal family with unabated glee. It's so sick and destructive and the imbecile Judge Boshier wonders why the male suicide rate for forced clients of his caring civil court is a concern!

Courts mixed on exes suing for tainting kids
Saturday, December 20, 2008
By MARGARET McHUGH
THE STAR-LEDGER
Should parents be allowed to sue their ex-spouses for turning their children against them?

A judge in Morris County said no in a case he decided in August. But last month, a Hudson County judge ruled the opposite way, that state law does not bar a parent from making a parental alienation claim in civil court.
The two cases are now headed to an appeals court, which will decide an issue that's being closely monitored by family law attorneys who are split over the issue. "What do you do when a child is being programmed to hate the other parent?"
Woodbridge attorney John Paone Jr. asked. "I believe you can't get justice in these alienation cases in the family court."
Attorney Cary Cheifetz, treasurer of the New Jersey chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, disagrees.
Such lawsuits "would cause more damage than good to society, families and children," he said. "The proper remedy is to fix the issue and undo the alienation by restoring the relationship. "
In the Morris County case, Superior Court Judge David Rand dismissed a complaint by retired multimillionaire developer Moses Segal against his former Canadian common-law wife, saying "New Jersey law simply does not allow recovery for the causes of action Segal asserts."
Rand cited the 1935 Heart Balm Act that abolished alienation of affection as grounds for a lawsuit.
Ruling in another case, Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli, sitting in Jersey City, disagreed. Gallipoli found the alienation claim barred by the Heart Balm Act pertained only to the marital relationship, not the children, and that a parent's claim of emotional distress resulting from being alienated from his children can be pursued in civil court.
"The Heart Balm Act doesn't prohibit what we're trying to do here," said Attorney Steven Resnick, who represents both Segal and Hoboken resident Vincent Smith, the father in the Gallipoli decision. "We want a jury to decide this."
In the Hudson County case, Vincent Smith sued his ex-wife, Rose Marie Smith, and her parents, accusing them of lying to his two daughters and making allegations of sexual misconduct and molestation.
Gallipoli allowed Smith's lawsuit against his in-laws to proceed, but dismissed the case against the ex-wife, saying Smith would first have to take his fight against her to Family Court. But the Family Court judge could allow Smith to seek monetary damages for his emotional distress claim in civil court, Gallipoli ruled.
Resnick is using Gallipoli's ruling to resurrect another parental alienation case in Essex County. Based on Rand's ruling, an Essex County judge dismissed Michael Besen's complaint that alleged his estranged wife, Sandra, caused him emotional distress by badmouthing him to the children.
"It's about time this nonsense comes to an end," Resnick said.

I've also attached a copy of a media release dated 14th December 2008 and a copy of the Publication Order issued by the Family Court of Australia on 5th December 2008.

You'll see the Court requires that any information published about Andrew or Melinda must carry a warning that Melinda is not to be approached and that local Police or Interpol should be notified immediately.

I am asking that any or all of this material be distributed as widely as possible via email and that the people who receive it from you forward it to as many people as possible, etc - particularly overseas.

Melinda is very well travelled and knows her way around. She and Andrew could be anywhere, including the UK, Europe, the US, and Canada.

I am expecting some more material to arrive shortly. This material will be written in several European languages and I will forward this to you as well.

This is part of a global media/multi-media campaign that is designed to find Andrew safe and well and have him returned to his family, friends,and home as quickly as possible.

I am very grateful for your on-going and active involvement (and so is Andrew).

If a man did this he would serve at least five years in jail. No questions just hard core jail.New Zealand is a country suffering from the radical feminism fallout. Unlawful gender discrimination is saturated throughout government systems that claim to act in the child's best interests.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
HE LIVED ALL ALONE
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE
I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE
AND TO SEE JUST WHO IN THIS HOME DID LIVE

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE
NO TINSEL NO PRESENTS NOT EVEN A TREE
NO STOCKING BY THE MANTLE JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES OF FAR DISTANT LANDS
WITH MEDALS AND BADGES AWARDS OF ALL KINDS
A SOBER THOUGHT CAME THROUGH MY MIND

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT IT WAS DARK AND DREARY
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY
THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING SILENT ALONE
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER
NOT HOW I PICTURED A LONE BRITISH SOLDIER
WAS THIS THE HERO OF WHOM I'D JUST READ
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO THE FLOOR FOR A BED

I REALISED THE FAMILIES THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT
SOON ROUND THE WORLD THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY

THEY ALL ENJOY FREEDOM EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE
I COULDN'T HELP WONDER HOW MANY ALONE
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME

THE VERY THOUGH BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES AND STARTED TO CRY
THE SOLDIER AWAKENED AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE
'SANTA DON'T CRY THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE
I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM I DON'T ASK FOR MORE
MY LIFE IS MY GOD, MY COUNTRY. MY CORPS'

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT I CONTINUED TO WEEP

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SAT AND SHIVERED FROM THE COLD NIGHTS CHILL
I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE ON THAT COLD DARK NIGHT
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOUR SO WILLING TO FIGHT

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE
WHISPERED 'CARRY ON SANTA ITS CHRISTMAS DAY ALL IS SECURE'
ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT
'MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT'

THIS POEM WAS WRITTEN BY A PEACE KEEPING SOLDIER STATIONED OVERSEAS
THE FOLLOWING IS HIS REQUEST I THINK IT IS REASONABLE.

PLEASE WOULD YOU DO ME THE KIND FAVOUR OF SENDING THIS TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS
YOU CAN

CHRISTMAS WILL BE COMING SOON AND SOME CREDIT IS DUE TO OUR BRITISH SERVICE
MEN AND WOMEN FOR OUR BEING ABLE TO CELEBRATE THESE FESTIVITIES.
LETS TRY IN THIS SMALL WAY TO PAY A TINY BIT BACK OF WHAT WE OWE!

SYRACUSE -- A father's quest to reunite with his son has apparently come to an end -- the Utah Court of Appeals has ruled against the man whose son was placed for adoption against his wishes four years ago.

One judge noted, however, that the law cited to terminate Nikolas Thurnwald's paternity rights is vague, illusory, highly problematic and invites fabrication.

He urged the Legislature to clarify the law.

"... (S)evering an unmarried biological father's parental rights based on such technicalities serves to reinforce traditional notions about gender and childrearing -- i.e., that women are biologically better suited for raising children," Judge James Z. Davis wrote in his concurring opinion released Thursday.

"(Those) notions are antiquated and harmful to both men and women."

The technicality to which Davis referred is a state law that requires an unmarried biological father who wishes to parent his child to file within at least one business day of the child's birth a sworn affidavit that "set(s) forth his plans for care of the child."

The law states an unmarried father must strictly comply with that requirement, meaning almost good enough is not good enough.

There is no legal definition of what a "plan for care" is, and even though Thurnwald had an attorney write a multipage affidavit, the court ruled that the affidavit did not contain a plan.

Thurnwald is planning to end his quest for his son, for now.

"I've done everything in my power, under the sun, that anybody can do as far as fighting this out, fighting to be his father and raising my child," he said.

"Whatever happened was completely out of my control, and I did everything -- everything -- I could. This is a sad situation. I'm going to wait for the day he's in my arms, united with me -- hopefully sooner rather than later."

Thurnwald plans to place his name on Utah's Mutual-Consent Voluntary Adoption Registry, which one day might help his son contact him.

In the absence of specific details written by legislators, the two other appeals judges who heard the case, Russell W. Bench and Carolyn B. McHugh, wrote that a father must state in his sworn affidavit at least "that he has a source of income and identify who will care forthe child while he is working to earn that income."

There is no requirement under Utah law that an unmarried mother detail a plan to care for her child or risk losing custody.

Thurnwald's attorney, Dan Drage, said Utah adoption law seems to assume all unmarried fathers want the child placed for adoption to avoid the heavy burden of child support payments.

He said when the occasional responsible and interested unmarried father comes along, his rights are often trounced.

"You've got more of a protectable interest when someone wants to repossess a vehicle or collect on a debt. They have to give you notice and give you a hearing, and all you're talking about is a television or an automobile," he said.

"But we're talking about a child here."

Drage said the court acknowledged that it was obvious Thurnwald expressed his desire to be a father at the time of his son's birth.

"He filed (an affidavit), he has fought hard, and there's no doubt what his intention all along was: 'I want to be the dad,' " Drage said.

"Now the court is saying, 'We know what your intention was, but you
didn't put it on paper.' We have a piece of paper, but it doesn't say
the magic words, and so his true intention is overlooked."

In that battle, Thurnwald convinced the state's highest court that the Constitution requires that his paternity affidavit be accepted even though he missed the statutory 24-hour post-birth deadline.

Thurnwald's child was placed for adoption on a Sunday before Labor Day, so the earliest he could file his affidavit with the court was Tuesday.

The Utah Supreme Court changed the law from a 24-hour post-birth deadline to a one-business-day deadline on equal protection grounds.

"We really want to balance the legitimate interests of the father, the mother and the adoptive parents -- and the child," Bell said. "And we don't want legitimate interests defeated by a technicality."

At the center of the case is a child who has spent more than four years with an adoptive family and knows no other parents. The court calls him Baby Boy Doe.

Had the court decided in Thurnwald's favor, an analysis of the best interests of the child may have been performed for the first time in the case.

Adam Pertman, of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, said that's too late to consider what's best for children.

He said he's unfamiliar with the Thurnwald case, so he could not comment on the merits of the complaint, but said men are often treated unfairly in adoption law.

"These laws can cause as many problems as they resolve," he said. "These laws are not well-understood and they are not well-publicized,but then men are expected to have followed them really well."

Pertman also said a case such as Thurnwald's should be expedited so
that it doesn't take four years to decide.

Davis acknowledged that not knowing the "magic words," as Drage called them, put Thurnwald in an impossible bind.

"The lead opinion clearly observes that N.T.'s petitions are utterly deficient in 'setting forth his plans for care of the child,' " Davis wrote.

"It is entirely unclear, however, precisely what N.T. could have -- or should have -- done differently that would have yielded a different result in this case."

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Actor Alec Baldwin has many wonderful traits. An Academy and Tony Award-nominee, he's been both a heartthrob in early movies and now makes us laugh with his portrayal of Jack Donaghy in the hit NBC-TV show

A Supremacist, is a believer in the superiority of a particular group: somebody who holds the view that a particular group is innately superior to others and therefore is entitled to dominate them.

White, black, female, male, whatever their colour or gender, these are extremists, and are a danger to the wellbeing of all of us.

These supremacists can also be found in the various religions, those who believe their religion is the only worthy one and therefore their beliefs should reign supreme over those of all other religions.

We also see them in parent/child relationships. These are the women (and men) who regard themselves the supreme parent and consider that the other parent is not worthy of a relationship with their children. These behaviours are permitted to flourish under the current system, which slavishly grovels to the agenda of the female supremacists.

This system, driven by the agenda of small groups of female supremacists, is the real enemy of the people. Many good women recognize this and speak out on our behalf with the support of most decent men and women around the world.

Many of these women have sons who are being destroyed by this horrendous system, that allows the fracturing of our society, and are appalled by what they see. Like the Men's movement, some speak out but many remain silent. We should encourage and support those who are willing to speak out against the female supremacists amongst us.

Great leaders like Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, embraced all those who wanted to help further their cause, no matter what colour their skin or what their gender. This eventually led to Gandhi and Mandela becoming leaders of their country and eventually saw a black US President. This would not have been possible without the support of those not sharing their skin colour.

So I think it is imperative we all focus on the real enemy "The System" and those who drive and support it. Like in the black civil rights movement, which saw people with a broad range of views, such as those of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, there are/and will continue to be, a wide range of views and methods used, before we achieve our common objective. Some are able to work together, others are unable to do so. But we are all playing our part.

Our greatest weakness is to attack each other. So let's not stifle debate, let's look for new ways to overcome our children's dilemma, let's be constructive and not destructive. If a particular method or process has not worked, or does not work anymore, let's move on and devise new ones. If earlier leaders have run out of ideas, let them move over and use their experience to encourage the new generation of parents to find new ways in an ever changing society.

Nothing much has changed in the abuse of our human rights by the International Family Justice System for the last 35 years, so new initiatives and ideas must be found. New ways to challenge and expose the system must be created. If they do not work, at least we prevent those following us repeating the same failed methods. So for the sake of our children, let's become more creative, imaginative and resourceful. Let's make 2009 the year that saw the beginning of the end, for a dreadful system that promotes the abuse of the fundamental human rights of our children to maintain a loving relationship with both of their parents.

What is inspiring about humans is, that just with a change of will, things can be different.

We can change the world, because we have that something special inside us, and it only takes a spark, one small second and we become different.

So let's set about igniting that spark and change community perceptions.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

I have no doubts that a direct correlation exists between falsely accused fathers confronted by the overwhelming viciousness from the Family Court and the increase in male suicide rates. Many bewildered fathers are forced clients of the unlawful gender discrimination that runs amuck in the out of control feminist Court. Surely Judge Boshier must be concerned at the numbers? Does he care? What a shame that good fathers are destroyed by a hateful gender bias Court of hell. How many funerals will I attend next year? So sad watching the children when dad is gone. They don't understand about the orchestrated evil of the slimy/sinister system that helped kill dad!

Suicide levels among males still three times female rate
The Press | Saturday, 13 December 2008

New Zealand's suicide death rate is well down on its 1998 peak but has not dropped any further since 2005, statistics show.

In 2006, the latest year for which figures are available, 524 people died by suicide of which 386 were male.

The male suicide rate continued to be almost three times the rate of the female rate, or almost four times the rate among those aged 15-24 years, the Ministry of Health said.

Those with particularly high rates were aged 15-29 years, along with Maori and those living in the most deprived parts of the country.

In the 10 years between 1996 and 2006, the suicide rate for men aged 20-29 years dropped by 40 per cent, with a 31% decrease reported in suicide among youth aged 15-24.

The rate of 12.2 suicide deaths per 100,000 population was a 19% decrease on the rate in 1998.

The rate of self-harm hospitalisation has also declined by 19% since 1996.

"It's pleasing to see the numbers trending downwards across several categories, especially in the traditionally high-risk group of males aged 20-29," said Janice Wilson, Health Ministry deputy director-general population health.

"However, it's obvious there's plenty more to do, with suicide rates for Maori, youth and those from more deprived areas still far too high."

In March, the government announced the release of the New Zealand Suicide Action Plan 2008-2012.

The Suicide Action Plan outlined a detailed programme of action to reduce the rates of suicide and suicide attempt in New Zealand.

Depression was the single biggest risk factor for suicide, and many men remained undiagnosed, according to Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand (Spinz), a service of the Mental Health Foundation.

"Reaching people, especially men, with information encouraging them to seek help is essential, as well as ensuring that mental health services are truly responsive," said Spinz director Merryn Statham.NZPA

What kind of leader will Michael Ignatieff be? It's a question that popped into my head when he cranked out a communique last week about domestic violence. It was the sort of pro forma statement most of the media ignored. But I didn't.

Last week, I used the occasion of the 19th anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre to challenge the feminist movement's anti-male orthodoxies and bogus "statistics, " which have swollen the government-funded coffers of women's projects at the expense of truth and men's rights. Normally I'd wait a while before tackling the subject again. But when a possible future prime minister of Canada puts his name to scare-mongering nonsense, for no other discernible reason than to curry favour with one identity group at another's expense, I feel compelled to write a follow-up.

Marking the 19th annual commemoration of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, Mr. Ignatieff issued a statement commiserating with the 14 female victims' families. Well and good.

Not well and good was the lily-gilding statement, "Even today, nearly one in three Canadian women are victims of spousal abuse."

This oft-cited figure is a myth, fabricated from whole ideological cloth. If true, the epidemic social pathology it represents would render Canada as dysfunctional as Darfur.

Millions of Canadian women would be roaming the streets with broken bones.

Here are the facts Mr. Ignatieff's staff could not be bothered to research: The five-year incidence of spousal assault victimization reported by women in a recent StatsCan survey was 8% for women, 7% for men. It is not reported whether, as is likely, many of the victims were also perpetrators, since half of intimate partner violence (IPV) is reciprocal. For severe violence, the annual reported figures are 2.6% for men and 4.2% for women.

Unilateral spousal "battering" is fairly rare. In a U. S. national survey of men and women touched by IPV, only 6% of married women cited unprovoked abuse by their husbands against 10% of men reporting the same by their wives.

Why, on the subject of IPV, do our political and cultural elites so stubbornly cling to obvious absurdities in the face of this transparent, authoritative and readily available information to the contrary?

The persistent stereotyping of IPV as a male pathology would seem to be a form of mass hysteria - not personal emotional breakdown, but rather hysteria in its viral sense of mass popular self-deception. How is the hysteria spread? By false statements such as those in Mr. Ignatieff's press release.

The misandric myths perpetrated by the "white ribbon" industry have terrible consequences. Falsely accused men are routinely driven from their homes, torn from their children's lives, languish in jail and a frighteningly high number are even harassed to suicide. That is because our legal system panders to the mass hysteria that Mr. Ignatieff, in thrall, like so many other pusillanimous politicians, to a handful of virulently anti-male ideologues, has indicated he will be complicit in promoting.

When leaders can't remedy social ills, or even apply themselves to understanding their actual causes - and IPV is indeed a social ill in need of realistic treatment, not scapegoating - they should at least refrain from adding to the problem..

There are important words Mr. Ignatieff needs to say to the literally millions of blameless fellow men his ignorance and bias have slandered: "I was wrong. I'm sorry." If he doesn't have the courage to do so, I would hope that Canadian men and fair-minded Canadian women will remember his cowardly silence, as I will, when next they go to the polls.
__._,_.___

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Media Opportunity: Have You Paid Too Much Child Support or Alimony? Major TV Show Wants to KnowI was recently contacted by a producer for a major TV show who is looking for fathers who believe that they are paying too much in child support and/or alimony. If this is you, please click here.

Sheriff's deputies arrested a Valencia mom for investigation of child concealment, child endangerment and interfering with a law-enforcement investigation after they searched her home and found what they called poor living conditions, an official said Monday.

Carol Hershey, ex-wife of former Santa Clarita City Council candidate and sheriff's Lt. Mark Hershey, was taken into custody Sunday evening after she failed to comply with a court-ordered visitation by her ex-husband, said Lt. Tom Bryski. The couple's daughters, ages 12 and 13, were found hiding in a closet, Bryski said.

Mark Hershey is a lieutenant at the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station.

"This is a serious case of parental alienation," Mark Hershey said.

Deputies asked for access to Carol Hershey's home on Sunday, but she refused, Bryski said. She also refused to tell the deputies the whereabouts of the two girls and falsely identified herself as Kathy, Carol Hershey's sister, he said.

Deputies found the girls in a closet after a two-hour search of Carol Hershey's home in the 23000 block of Summerglen Place in Valencia, Bryski said.

Deputies described the living conditions at Carol Hershey's home as poor, Bryski said. Four of the five bedrooms in the home were rented out to a total of at least eight people, he said. Carol Hershey and her daughters lived in the master bedroom, which was buried in dirty clothes and piles of miscellaneous items, Bryski said.

Deputies returned the children to Mark Hershey.

Mark and Carol Hershey's child custody problems date back at least two years.

"She hates me," Mark Hershey said.

During Mark Hershey's 2006 unsuccessful bid for the Santa Clarita City Council, Carol Hershey obtained a restraining order against him, accusing him of sexual abuse. She accused Mark Hershey of making unwanted sexual advances, exposing himself to her, attempting to coerce her into sexually gratifying him and on one occasion forcing her to perform oral sex on him.

"It's all lies," Hershey said after the accusations were levied. "I haven't done any crimes."

The two have been separated since October 2002, with their divorce finalized in October 2003.

The restraining order prohibited Mark Hershey from coming within 100 yards of Carol Hershey, or attempting to contact her except for "brief and peaceful" contact related to visitation of their two daughters.

The restraining order was entered into a national database, and also required Hershey to surrender his firearms and any ammunition to his superiors.

Attached to the restraining order is a June 22 report filed with the Los Angeles Police Department, in which Carol Hershey told a detective that in addition to the Oct. 24 incident, Mark Hershey allegedly exposed himself to her on June 19 in the parking lot of the Superior Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles after a heated custody dispute.

"Those claims didn't go anywhere," Mark Hershey said.

A Los Angeles Family Court judge threw out the original restraining order and replaced it with a modified restraining order in August 2006, which allowed Mark Hershey to reclaim his weapons so his job would not be jeopardized.

Additionally, the revised order maintains Hershey's joint custody of his daughters with visitation rights.

The long ordeal is wearing on Hershey and his two daughters.

"I have two little kids that are hurt pretty bad and this is going on for two years," he said.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

10 DECEMBER 2008 - Planned to coincide with a public protest on Thursday, December 11 2008, the protest organiser, Benjamin Easton, of a father's coalition had joined with other associates in delegation to meet with the new Families Commissioner Jan Pryor. In the order of negotiating the content of that meeting the Commission had determined that they would refuse to hear any discussions in relation to the plight of fathers in the Family Court.

Mr Easton and other Wellington coalition minded fathers have requested to meet with the Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Boshier, after his public refusal to meet with the group in 2007. The fathers are clearly frustrated that after a year long maintained plea to meet with the top judge the request continues to fall on deaf ears. "The problem" says Mr Easton "is that the matters we want to bring to the judge's attention have not been responded to in any other public or political forum. It is easy to say that the public have a right to the freedom of speech but when no-one in the working bureaucracy gives time to that speech the entrenched right has little value.

Besides appealing for the Commission to broker a meeting with the principal judge the issues to be raised by the delegation of four fathers included gender equality versus gender equity and recognition of Parent Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Mr Easton was on the proposed agenda to talk about legal and administrative neglects regarding PAS, a conflict against a parent, involving a child. Yet, just 48 hours before the protest and from there on the confirmed meeting, the father's organiser for the meeting received a phone call from the Commission's Executive Officer Paul Curry. "Mr Curry advised me" says Mr Jackson, "that if there were any protests held on the day of the meeting then the meeting would be cancelled".

In direct response to this extraordinary stance Mr Easton has withdrawn from the meeting. "The Commission, here, are deeper abrogating their responsibilities to the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1990" he says. "They are excluding the right of association with a protest or the protestors. PAS is about an inflamed breach against an association between child and parent, so it is enormously ironic and significant that the countries Families Commission is poisoning my given right as a father to directly protest against a rampant nanny state. It is also directly inconsistent with their statutory obligation".

Mr Jackson and the two remaining fathers of the delegation have no intention of not attending the meeting after the Commission's refusal relative to protests on the same day. "If the Commission intend to pursue a matter as totalitarian, over the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, "says the Wellington New Zealand Republican Party candidate Justin Harnish, also in the delegation, "then they open our new government to the intolerance of their fellow countrymen and women. If our associate Mr Easton wishes to protest" continues Mr Harnish, "then that is his time honoured and democratic right and that must not, for any price be interfered with. It is unfortunate that Mr Easton decided to withdraw from the meeting".

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

‘Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'

So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem.

It's less dangerous for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is.
There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

If you agree, please forward. Together we can help save precious lives! Please support those who cannot speak for themselves! Thank You.

Monday, December 8, 2008

Around the country, groups are working to stop false allegations of domestic violence. Now the mainstream media are beginning to highlight the devastating impact of such claims.

Recently WCVB-TV, the ABC affiliate in Boston, Mass. ran a newscast highlighting two men whose girlfriends obtained domestic violence restraining orders. The orders had been issued without any evidence of abuse.

When it came time for the final hearing, the women didn't bother to show up and the orders expired. But the men's names were permanently entered into the state Domestic Violence Registry.

As a result, one man had his employment application denied. He commented, "I was guilty from the moment this person walked in and filed that order."

The segment also quotes a representative of the Massachusetts domestic violence coalition who notes restraining orders can be "misused," and admits, "I think it's a problem."

To RADAR's knowledge, this is the best-ever TV coverage of the problem of false allegations.

TAKE ACTION NOW:

We encourage every person who reads this Alert to view the newscast and forward the URL to your media contacts, elected officials, and others. Emphasize that the nation's domestic violence system has spun out of control, and we need to reform the Violence Against Women Act.

Each year 2-3 million restraining orders are issued, half of which don't involve even an allegation of violence. RADAR has released 10 recommendations designed to curb false allegations of domestic violence: http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20081020.php.

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org.

McGee believes Spears needed her father's firm hand in her life to save herself and her career
Fatherly love undoubtedly plays a huge role in his involvement

Why does the evil Family Court in New Zealand fail to recognize the healthy influence from a responsible father in the nurturing process. Oh that's right Judge Peter Boshier is a feminazi screwball hell bent on the destruction of fatherhood. Watch your back Boshier, because natural justice is coming your way at a million miles an hour, you corrupt faggot.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

At least the poms recognize the problem for children and non custodial parents!
Breaking Court orders by custodial parents in New Zealand is normal because it fits extremely well with the orchestrated hateful agendas of the Feminist De Family Court.

Under new laws that come into effect next week, divorced or separated mothers and fathers will be hit with tough punishments for breaking contact orders handed down by family courts.

They can be sentenced to up to 100 hours of unpaid work in the community for breaking the orders, with the penalty doubling to 200 hours and a fine if they fail to abide by the punishment.

In addition, parents can be forced to attend therapy sessions and parenting lessons in the terms of the contact orders.

The new rules come into effect from Monday in provisions of the Children and Adoption Act 2006 that aim to strengthen the power of the authorities to deal with parents who block contact.

They are being welcomed by some legal experts as a way of ensuring that parents who separate are able to keep in touch with their children.

Barbara Reeves, a partner in the family department of leading law firm Mishcon de Reya, said: "Any measures that support parental contact following the separation of a child's parents are to be supported.

"These latest measures allow courts far greater powers to facilitate contact by imposing conditions to contact orders which will compel parents to attend family therapy, parenting classes and the like.

"Also, where one parent frustrates contact, the court now has a practical enforcement power in that it some circumstances the recalcitrant parent can be compelled to take unpaid work.

"It remains to be seen however, just how far the courts will take advantage of these new powers and move us towards the ideal situation whereby children are brought up always knowing both parents and honouring agreements or orders that facilitate contact."

But others claim the new sanctions will criminalise mothers and fathers unnecessarily, and point out that single parents will struggle to find the time to attend courses as well as meeting the costs, which could reach £2,500.

Chris Goulden, of the family law group Resolution, said: "The principles behind these new powers are laudable but they are unlikely to bring about any meaningful improvement unless the new services are up and running, properly funded and readily available for the courts to refer families to.

"At the present moment there is a disturbing lack of clarity as to what activities will be available, where, when and who will pay for them."

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A Philadelphia man was forced to pay more than $12,000 in child support for another man's daughter and spent two years in jail for falling behind on payments.

Dauphin County prosecutor Edward M. Marsico Jr. told The Patriot-News of Harrisburg that he is examining the case of Walter Andre Sharpe Jr., who has been unable to recover the money even after establishing that he isn't the girl's father.

The investigation has no specific targets, Marsico said.
Sharpe's troubles began in 2001, when he signed for a certified letter addressed to Andre Sharpe, the girl's father. The letter ordered Andre Sharpe to attend a child support conference in Dauphin County, where the girl's mother lived at the time.

Walter Sharpe, who was already supporting four children from a previous marriage, ignored the letter, and a judge ruled he was the father after neither man showed up. The county family welfare agency then began garnishing Walter Sharpe's wages from his job at a trash-hauling company.

He served four six-month jail terms for not keeping up with support payments between 2001 and 2005, then lost his job. Petitions he filed for DNA testing were opposed by the court's domestic relations officials and denied by the judge.

In May 2007, the paternity order against Walter Sharpe was overturned after the girl's mother and grandmother failed to show up to a court hearing. But the judge ruled in October that Walter Sharpe was not entitled to compensation.

Walter Sharpe and his attorney, Tabetha Tanner, claim his identity was stolen in 2002, when he met with agency officials and provided identification showing he was not the father. Instead, his personal information was entered into the agency's computer records, he said.

Officials in the court's domestic relations office would not respond to the newspaper's questions. They said in court papers that they determined Walter Sharpe was the father "after reasonable investigation."

Andre Sharpe has said he has always supported the girl, who is now living with him in Philadelphia and about to graduate from high school.

An unconditional publication order has now been granted by the Family Court of Australia, in an attempt to locate Andrew.

Andrew was last known to have arrived at Frankfurt airport in Germany with his mother.

Anything you can do to help distribute this brochure, in any country, will be appreciated.

Regards,

Paul Saurine

0409 773 121

Please forward / Bitte weiterleiten:

MISSING CHILD

Andrew John THOMPSON

Four years of age - Born 19th August 2004

Andrew John THOMPSON was taken from Australia in April 2008 by Melinda Margaret THOMPSON (nee Melinda Margaret STRATTON).

They flew from Sydney to Frankfurt (Germany) on a Singapore Airlines flight on 24th April 2008 and have not been seen or heard from since then.

Both are Australian Citizens travelling on Australian passports.

Grave concerns are held for Andrew's safety and well-being by his father, Australian Police, and Australian child protection authorities.

Serious concerns are also held for Melinda THOMPSON's emotional well-being.

Melinda THOMPSON speaks fluent German and English, and French.

Andrew has fair hair and brown eyes. Melinda is blonde with brown eyes.

If you have seen them please contact your local Police urgently who will will contact Interpol - do not approach Melinda THOMPSON.
Andrew's father (Ken Thompson) can also contacted on
kenthompson@fastmail.fm or
+61-2-9816-3710 or
+61-417-416-024 if calling mobile to mobile.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

How many more of our children are to die or be neglected and abused before the governments recognise the protective early detection role of grandparents? A fortune is spent on all kinds of useless schemes that obviously do not work when we have disasters like Baby P.

Why won’t they recognise the fact that grandparents can save the country millions by being relevant persons in a child’s life.

What have the governments got against grandparents that they refuse them the legal right to know when their grandchildren are being taken into care and refuse them the right to information about their grandchildren’s welfare? Are the administrators of family law doing their best for our children? Obviously not, but they still fill their pockets and children still die. Why do the governments refuse to accept that they are wrong and have messed up the family laws of this country?

We need grandparents to be relevant in a child’s life. Who better knows what is going on behind the closed doors but are not taken seriously.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

AS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY TUCK INTO THE TURKEY THIS CHRISTMAS AND EXPERIENCE THE JOY OF CELEBRATING THIS SPECIAL TIME WITH THOSE CLOSEST TO YOU, SPARE A THOUGHT FOR THOSE NOT SO LUCKY.

WHILE YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY THOSE WHO ENJOY SHARING THE BOND OF FAMILY KINSHIP WITH YOU, CONSIDER THE DESPERATE PLIGHT OF 2.6 MILLION OF YOUR FELLOW AUSTRALIANS FORCIBLY DENIED THIS PRIVILEGE.

PLEASE LISTEN CLOSELY AND YOU WILL HEAR THE CRIES OF 700,000 AUSTRALIAN CHILDREN AND THE GROANS OF DESPAIR FROM THEIR NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS, AS THEY PINE FOR THE BONDS OF KINSHIP SO CRUELLY DENIED THEM, WITH THE APPROVAL OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.

THESE GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES OCCUR DUE TO BADLY FLAWED FAMILY LAWS, WHICH ARE SET UP TO FAIL, AS THEY ENCOURAGE, RATHER THAN RESOLVE CONFLICT, AND ARE TEARING APART THE NATIONS' PARENT/CHILD RELATIONSHIPS.

YET YOU REMAIN SILENT!

THE MULTI BILLION DOLLAR DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY, WHICH IS DRIVEN BY IGNORANCE, GREED AND MALICE, IS ALLOWED TO FLOURISH ON YOUR WATCH, BECAUSE YOU TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE CULTURAL GENOCIDE INFLICTED BY THIS INDUSTRY ON THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY.

THESE LAWS CONTINUE WITH THE BLESSING OF THE STATE, DUE TO THE FAILINGS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT TO CHALLENGE THE EXCESSES OF THIS INDUSTRY, AND HISTORY IS SURE TO JUDGE YOU HARSHLY FOR THESE FAILINGS.

GRANDIOSE POSTURING ON THE WORLD STAGE, WHILE YOUR OWN PEOPLE BLEED AND OUR COMMUNITIES ARE FORCIBLY TORN APART, IS A HOLLOW SYMBOLISM OF WORLDLINESS.

BY IGNORING THE HUMAN MISERY INFLICTED BY THE STATE ON FELLOW AUSTRALIANS THROUGH THE ACTIONS OF THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY, YOUR NAME WILL BE ETCHED IN HISTORY, AS NEGLECTING TO PLACE THE WELL-BEING OF YOUR SUFFERING CONSTITUENTS FIRST.

BY DECIDING TO TURN YOUR BACK, YOUR NAME WILL BE CARVED IN HISTORY NOT FOR THE GOOD YOU HAVE DONE, BUT RATHER FOR WHAT YOU FAILED TO DO.

ANY PERCEIVED HISTORICAL STATUS YOU MAY ENVISAGE OBTAINING BECAUSE OF YOUR STAND ON CLIMATE CHANGE OR HOW YOU DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, WILL BE OVERSHADOWED BY THE WAY YOU HAVE NEGLECTED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THE NATIONS CHILDREN AND THEIR NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

"Justice, not man-hating ideology, must prevail in our justice system."

Unless you have fallen victim to this cruel and callous system you will never understand the existence of a deep rooted resentment simmering away waiting patiently for justice. The sicko's from the Family Court gravy train of deceit encourage the children to hate through the insidious Parental Alienation Syndrome in the sinister adversarial litigation world of misery for all but the fat cats.Hey judge leave my kids alone. The hateful agenda is welcomed by a hateful feminist controlled judiciary! I am sickened to be a father of four kiwi born children. The damage inflicted on my family has been fatal. RIP mum and I will get even as I am a great believer in karma and natural justice. The Family Court has shafted the wrong man, believe me I will make the filth pay dearly for their malicious mistake.

Dogged by weeks of protest, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit finally took down the controversial advertisements from its buses this past weekend. Purchased by a local abuse shelter, the ads featured a young schoolgirl who blithely predicted, "One day my husband will kill me."

Journalist Helen Smith denounced the ads as "Very disturbing hate speech against husbands, fathers, and even boys." Advice Goddess Amy Alkon titled her op-ed, "Hating Men — Supposedly for the Greater Good." One distraught mother responded to the Dallas Morning News article by writing, "I took my son aside after seeing it and explained to him how certain women in this society abuse their positions to promote hatred towards men and boys."

From its beginnings three decades ago, the domestic violence industry has been plagued by a cabal of pinkshirts who will do almost anything to advance their agenda.

Erin Pizzey, founder of the first domestic violence shelter in England, let the cat out of the bag when she revealed many of the women in her shelter were as abusive as the men they had left. In retaliation, feminists issued death threats and eventually forced her to flee the country.

In the United States, Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz' research on the Battered Husband Syndrome triggered a whispering campaign designed to torpedo her impending promotion, as well as a bomb threat at her daughter's wedding.

Family violence researcher Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire has been similarly slandered, harassed, and threatened by radicals who all claim to be against violence.

Eventually the gender partisans got their way, securing passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. Conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly would later refer to the legislation as the "hate-men law."

Is that description a little over-the-top? Read on, decide for yourself.

Federal domestic violence laws funnel millions in taxpayer money to sponsor public awareness programs such as the Dallas bus ads, as well as training for judges and law enforcement personnel.

Former police officer George Sperry of La Mesa, Calif. described the training he attended as "so dripping with male hatred that everyone in the class felt uncomfortable, male and female officers alike."

But the most virulent anti-male ethos is found at the 1,800 abuse shelters scattered across the country.

A former worker at Bethany House in Falls Church, Va. revealed the facility was "largely used as a free hostel for women with emotional problems if they were willing to hate their husbands enough."

One woman, hired to work for a network of shelters in the St. Louis area, quit in disgust after only a few months because the residents "were subjected to a constant barrage of man-hating lesbian propaganda."

One Seattle-area judge who served as a member of the advisory committee of a shelter admitted, "I was shocked at the anti-male bias of the ladies who ran the shelter. The only solution championed by the shelter was to get free from that big, malicious male."

Joy Taylor, former volunteer at a Washington state shelter, found that "Men were always presented as potential abusers; any goodness one might see in them was only temporary."

Shelter residents also complain of deep-seated anti-male bias.

At Independence House in Hyannis, Mass., Nev Moore disclosed, "Women are ordered to leave their husbands, even in the complete absence of real domestic violence or abuse."

Former shelter resident Nezha Saad revealed, "exposure to domestic violence audio and visual materials in the shelter has negatively affected my children to the point where even they may now feel that men, in general, are abusive." Saad demanded that "Justice, not man-hating ideology, must prevail in our justice system."

But the problem is not just an out-of-control industry that marinates itself in defamatory caricatures of men — the source can be traced to feminist ideology as a whole.

Gloria Steinem once made this breath-taking statement, "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself." And feminist icon Andrea Dworkin spewed this shocking tirade: "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

Three years ago the New York Times ran a screed that blamed the problem of domestic violence on "every man and in every class of society." (All the research shows women are as likely to abuse as men — www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm — but goodness gracious, let's not allow the facts to stand in the way of female empowerment!)

Americans pride ourselves as being open-minded and tolerant. So where did the feminist movement get sidetracked?

Professor Murray Straus, a courageous man who refuses to back down in the face of feminist efforts to squelch his research, explains it this way: "History is full of atrocities carried out in the service of a moral agenda."

Monday, December 1, 2008

MADMEN & DREAMERS Band USA have their Rock Opera "the Children of Children" Opening off-Broadway, New York City, on Friday 12 December, 2008.

Globally they are being applauded for their positive Creativity-in-Action and Social Consciousness.

Through the Arts & Music Storytelling they are stirring grassroots global 'people power'. Mobilization for constructive solutions of humankindness to a hidden international epidemic social problem destroying the lives of Children~Parents~Families. The essential fabric of Society.

A cautionary tale based on real life experiences of everyday folk caught within the multi$billion "human killjoy misery industry" --- the Family Law Court Systems in the USA, Australia, UK, Canada, NZ and Worldwide.

This innovative and imaginative Rock Opera brings the HOPE of "Lovein Action" to the millions upon millions of hurting & suffering Children~Parents~Families trapped in this secret "Concentration Camp" torment & torture.

Much power/strength to the Madmen & Dreamers Band and their Musical Quest of Truth through the freedom of Performing Arts Expression.
===============================================================================

Here we go, folks! Fridays, starting December 12th at 10:30 pm, we will be performing our original rock musical, The Children of Children, at The Bleecker St. Theatre (www.myspace.com/45bleecker), 45 Bleecker St. NYC, 10012. CofC Album Cover

Tickets are available on telecharge: www.telecharge.com/go.aspx?MD=102&PID=7139&AID=OBW000713900 and TDF
(Theatre Development Fund: www.tdf.org)

The Children of Children ( www.thechildrenofchildren.com)
is the story of one father who refuses to divorce his kids. It
is the gripping, emotional tale of one of the greatest unaddressed issues of our time. If you haven't been through it, you know someone who has. It is a story of survival and growth and ultimate triumph.

Critically acclaimed on the web and in print, this independent release by Madmen and Dreamers has been nominated for Album Of The Year, had a single (Madmen and Dreamers) nominated for Record Of The Year and gained unheard of global radio play in both web and terrestrial FM.

"This story should be told to every generation." Trutti Gasparinetti, choreographer, New York City
". . . this has the same dramatic feel of some of Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous works. Jesus Christ Superstar is the one that comes to mind." Stephanie Sollow, ProgressiveWorld.net
"It may be one of the most memorable, timely and potentially influential pieces of artful commentary to come along in some time ." Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graeme MacCormick retired as Family Court judge in December after serving 15 years on the bench. Here are his views on men's groups' protests.

Will judges be intimidated by the men's groups' protests?

I do not perceive the judges of the court will be in the least influenced in their decision-making by any protest outside their homes. They have a job to do on behalf of the community. The children whose lives are affected are the children of their birth parents and also children of the community.

What often seems to get overlooked in criticisms of the Family Court is that the originating problems brought to it are not of the court's making. There are frequently power and control issues between the birth parents or between them and subsequent caregivers.

Many in the men's groups vent a lot of anger. What's behind this?

Anger is a natural emotion which shows other people our boundaries. It is precisely where our boundaries lie and the way we deal with our anger that counts. Anger that is not properly dealt with too often leads to physical outbursts and assaults and is, quite frequently, a feature of the more difficult Family Court cases.

Where I think men - as a broad generalisation - find themselves disadvantaged is when women have been the primary caregivers before separation and men have been the primary providers.

When the relationship breaks down and the woman tries to hold on to her role to the substantial exclusion of her former husband or partner, then the father is left with resort to the Family Court, which is not always resourced to be able to respond as quickly as the father - or indeed the court - would like. Nor might the outcome be exactly what either partner wants, depending on the circumstances and the perceived welfare and best interests - and views - of the child or children. Those are the determining factors with the law as it stands.

The protesters want equal parenting as the default position of the court in decisions about the care of children. What's your view of that?
I question whether they are going about that in the right way. They need to convince a majority of members of parliament of the need for a law change and that it will be best for children. Men's groups would need good research to back their position.

In the meantime, the judges of the court will try to apply the law, as it stands. It seems to me there is little point in attacking judges as a body for doing that.

I doubt that you are likely to achieve change by targeting the wrong people. Good, positive time with both birth parents, subject to issues of physical and emotional safety, is clearly the ideal. In an increasing number of cases that is equal time.

But sometimes extreme, ongoing conflict between birth parents, both locked in a battle over their children that they become ever more determined to win, makes this impossible to achieve.

Sometimes children have had so much conflict in their lives, without being able to see an end to it, that very occasionally and as a last resort a choice may need to be made for care by one birth parent to the exclusion of the other, hopefully temporary.

There have also been complaints, on behalf of women, that "without notice" applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act were not being granted readily enough and that too many were being placed "on notice", with significant physical risk to women and children. This demonstrates the difficulty of satisfying everybody. When temporary protection orders are made without notice, in perceived situations of a threat to safety, and when children are involved, the court is increasingly scheduling a review of the temporary order within one or two weeks.

Men's groups also complain about mothers making false testimony to the court.

For "false testimony" one can often substitute "a different perspective or perception". If there is genuinely false testimony before the court and it is not acknowledged or corrected and it is material provided with intent to deceive the court, this can clearly ground a prosecution for perjury. On occasion, the Family Court will refer a matter of perceived perjury to the police for consideration of prosecution. Anything in the nature of deliberately false evidence or misleading testimony will almost inevitably be counter-productive to the position of the person on whose behalf it is provided.

The protesters say they are targeting lawyers because they lie to the court. Why would they make such claims?

This probably refers to the lawyer for the children, with whom dissatisfied litigants of both genders will frequently take issue. Their job is to represent the child or children independently of the parents or caregivers.

Their client is the child. But they are not meant to give evidence to the court - as opposed to making submissions based on the evidence.

It is, however, normal for the lawyer for the child to advise a child's views and the child's instructions, if the child is able to provide them. That may not be exactly what the child has said to his or her parents.

What do you think of the men's groups' tactics?

Men's groups can frequently be helpful in providing a "McKenzie friend" or support person for a father acting on his own behalf. Likewise they fulfil a useful purpose in keeping before the public the importance of birth parents to children.

But Family Court judges are well aware of this and need no reminding. Men's groups need to be carefully focused if they are not to be counter-productive.

I suspect that the protests may, in their targeting, say more about the protesters than about the operation of the court. If their intention is to embarrass, harass or intimidate might not similar traits and tactics have been factors in the breakdown of their marriage or relationship?

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Baldwin's main point is that the time (let alone expense) it takes to legally secure the right to see your child destroys a father's relationship with his children almost as thoroughly as the manipulations of a hostile ex-spouse.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

In New Zealand how many vengeful and vindictive maternal family members ever get charged after telling lies to authorities claiming malicious false allegations of sexual child abuse and domestic violence? A maternal family can alienate and poison the children against a non custodial father without any legal consequences.What about perjury,contempt of court, wasting police time??? etc..etc... A bewildered heartbroken father is confronted by the insidious Parental Alienation Syndrome and a vicious gender bias judiciary! It hurts big time,just look at the tragic male suicide and child abuse statistics.

Step One in the 12 Step programme for suffering respondent clients of the Kangaroo Court; I am powerless to do anything about the lies and deception in the De Family Court ! The comments expressed by the UK Judge in the article below reiterates my point.The law is a sick feminist joke! Judge Boshier likes it that way, because the fractured family business is a big money spinner for many parasitic and unscrupulous so called professionals, who are nothing more than lying scum!

A senior judge spoke out against child access law yesterday, saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Answer "yes" to just one of the following questions and you will know why I wrote this book for you:

* Does being called to court strike fear in your heart?
* Are you struggling in the court system now?
* Have you been to court in the past and come away wounded?
* Is precious time and money needed for your profession being consumed just to protect you from the legal monster?
* Do you worry about someone you supervise or care about due to their involvement with the legal system?

Do you answer "yes" because the legal monster has eaten the heart out of trust, truth and justice? Has the loss of these social staples left you without inspiration?

In a recent survey of people like you who have been to court:

Average amount paid in legal fees was $127,900; The largest was $500,000 and the lowest was $6,000.

Average number of court appearances including appeals was 48.

The average case lasted eight years. The longest case is now going on 18 years, the shortest case was two years. Most were not satisfactorily completed. After great effort an expense, money ran out, lawyers would not take the case, and justice was not achieved. Regardless of cost, there was no closure for people using our justice system.

For you who have never been to court , the legal monster crouches in shadows. Fear of litigation costs millions of dollars each year in wasted time and money. Surgeons spend more time doing paperwork than surgery just to ensure that they meticulously minimize liability. Your doctor's malpractice premium gets passed on to you in higher fees. Drugs go undeveloped or are prolonged while pharmaceutical companies take extra steps to prevent litigation. School personnel avoid confronting disciplinary issues for fear of being sued by angry parents. Every dollar you spend is inflated to cover costs of litigation avoidance aka risk management. The innocent settle suits that deserve to be heard because the legal monster crowds out justice.

Who or what is this menace? It is the result of the abusive nature of our legal system and absence of consistent checks and balances. Therefore, warning about liability is the theme of this generation. Most of you don't easily trust institutions or each other. Fear of being vulnerable to exploitation or assault may prevent you from a new venture or idea. The very thought of being wiped out by litigation quells creativity and forces tension in all relationships. We live in times of prenuptial agreements and fine print asking us to give up rights before a conflict arising. This book will reach out to you and reintroduce the human side of justice seeking. Truth, trust, and access to justice are staples of a sound society. They must not be allowed to be chewed up and swallowed by the legal monster. This book will guide you.

If you are left damaged from a bad court experience, one thing is for sure. You do not deserve to live with the horror that there is nothing you can do about improving changes for a fair justice system. For you, this book will bring together research from the most active and brilliant legal critics. A complete list of readings and resources will guide you toward personal healing, reconnecting with others, risking judicious trust, and planning positive action. It is critical that you do not withdraw into isolation. You are needed. Your knowledge, expertise, and decency can make the difference.

NOTE: To participate in the on-going documentation of Legal Abuse Syndrome, and to share your case overview with Ms. Huffer for research purposes, please e-mail REDRESS2@redressinc .org , and note "Study Participant" in the subject line.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Right now in the state of Nebraska, the governor is literally begging people not to bring their teenage children there to dump them, so that the state then has to care for them. But it's happening. It's happening a lot.

New Report Calls for Legal Changes to Strengthen Marriage and Combat Family Breakdown. If only such a report was on the table in New Zealand. Come on kiwis, surely our damaged children are the priority too address the dysfunctional Family Unit, and the absurd law that demonizes fathers from the Family equation? Kids need Dads Too! Children are our future Judge Boshier!

A radical overhaul of family law aimed at strengthening marriage and reducing family breakdown is signalled today by a new report from the think-tank set up by the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Among the proposals under consideration are making pre-nuptial agreements legally binding, official backing for marriage preparation classes, reviewing divorce procedures and changes aimed at creating greater consistency in financial settlements on divorce. It says that the legally questionable status of pre-nuptial agreements at present may deter couples from marrying, especially the wealthy.

The creation of family relationship centres, along the lines of the Australian system, to smooth the path for separating or divorcing couples and their children is also floated in the report from the Centre for Social Justice. New rights for grandparents to remain in contact with children after a parental divorce and better access to children for absent fathers are also foreshadowed.

But the report is sceptical of measures to give cohabiting couples legal rights similar to those of married couples, suggesting such a step would fuel family breakdown.

The report, The Family Law Review of the Centre for Social Justice, is an interim study, and the proposals trailed will be finalised in a second report to be published in the spring of next year.

Mr Duncan Smith said that the report was timely given public concern over the Baby P case and others such as Karen Matthews, who has seven children by five different fathers. He said that such cases were “shining the spotlight” on the chaotic nature of family life in the poorest parts of Britain, which has virtually the highest level of family breakdown in Europe.

Mr Duncan Smith said: "Today 25 per cent of children in this country live in single parent families and this trend is set to accelerate. These children are three to six times more likely to experience abuse. A recent US study found that children living with a non-biological adult are 50 times more likely to die from afflicted injuries than those living with their biological parents."

Despite its interim nature, the report gives a strong indication of the CSJ’s thinking and says that only changes that will reinforce marriage should be adopted. It restates the mounting body of evidence showing that marriage produces better outcomes for both adults and children.

The report says: “This review is working from an underlying assumption that marriage should be supported both in government policy and in the law and that, related to this, fatherlessness (or motherlessness), far more likely when relationships are informal, should be avoided…”

“Policy can and should be focused on stemming the tide of relationship breakdown. Promoting stability and commitment will thus guide all the work we do and the policies we recommend…”

“Marriage also acts as a stabiliser and a signal. Married couples are far less likely to break up than couples who live together without getting married. This is true even when allowance is made for the influence of such factors as income, age and education. The correlation between stability and marriage is strong and widely acknowledged amongst experts.”

The report links rising levels of family breakdown to the increase in cohabitation. This has risen from just over 10 per cent of men and women 20 years ago to 25 per cent now. This change explains much of the rise in births outside marriage – up from 25 per cent in 1988 to 44 per cent today.

It cites research showing that cohabiting couples with children are much less likely to go on and marry than childless cohabiting couples and that they are far more likely to break up. Only 35 per cent of children born into a cohabiting union will live with both parents throughout their childhood, compared with 70 per cent born to married couples.

The average length of a marriage that ends in divorce is 11.5 years compared with just two years for a live-in relationship.

The report casts doubt on a call from the Law Commission for cohabiting couples to be given a legal right to a financial settlement on separation.

“While doing much to address perceived injustices, these proposals are obviously not compatible with a long-term national policy aimed at improving family stability by encouraging marriage and discouraging markedly more unstable cohabitation.”

The report signals policy recommendations to come in the final report of the review group, which is chaired by Dr Samantha Callan, honorary research fellow at Edinburgh University. Areas to be covered include:

* The role of the law as a potentially stabilising factor in relationships and particularly marriage.

* The merits of proposals to make ‘pre-nuptial’ written agreements about the distribution of money and property legally binding, for those who wish to use them.

* The extent to which Government should seek to support people’s efforts to ‘pre-qualify’ themselves for entrance into marriage, and in particular, visit the effectiveness of relationship and marriage preparation classes and the possible role that churches and voluntary organizations could contribute to their provision.

* Financial distribution after divorce in terms of its potentially destabilizing effects and whether a ‘low cost of divorcing’, if it pertains in reality, has caused undesirable changes and removed significant incentives to work at a marriage.